CONTRAINDICACIONES DE LA PUNCIÓN LUMBAR 39

5.2.1.2.1The Western Local Land Services: a unique position

According to the Biosecurity Act 2015, ‘all tiers of government, industry and people of NSW need to work together to protect the economy, environment and community from the negative impacts of pests, including pest animals’ (NSW DPI, 2018). Under the NSW Biosecurity Act 2015, pest animals are not defined by species. Pest species can be considered any species (other than native species) that present a biosecurity threat. Consequently, in the Western Division, the recently published Regional Strategic Pest Animal Management Plan (‘the plan’) classifies goats:

among the most important pest animals in the Western region, causing damage to primary production, natural environments and cultural assets and increasing the risks associated with the spread of certain endemic and exotic diseases. (WLLS, 2018a)

Notably, the plan differs from other similar regional plans in NSW by using the term ‘unmanaged rangeland goats’ rather than ‘feral goats’, despite still classifying them a pest:

We’ve just put out the 11 regional pest animal strategies and there are some people who are completely opposed to the idea of even calling them feral goats, afraid that it will damage the industry whereas it should be about defining that feral goats, when we’re talking about controlling feral goats, we’re talking about those animals that are having a specific negative impact on assets we’re trying to protect and really spelling that message out, that we are talking about different things. (P25, conservationist/government)

Apart from the WNSW regional plan, all other NSW LLS regional pest animal management plans still call the animal ‘feral’. It could be argued that this unique position in the west is due to the region’s importance in terms of having the highest goat density and, therefore, its contribution to supply. This means the potential for collaborative management of goats has a greater chance of success in this region. This will be discussed in Chapters 8 and 10.

The Western Regional Pest Animal Committee oversees the implementation of the plan, monitoring its success and the ongoing periodic review and adaptation as required. Regional plans are part of the NSW Biosecurity framework for pest animals, where they have a central position within other strategic approaches towards pest management (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: The NSW Biosecurity framework for pest animals (adapted from WLLS, 2018a)

There are five management categories under the plan: prevention/alert, eradication, containment, asset-based protection and limited action. Unmanaged rangeland goats fall under ‘asset-based protection’ as the most appropriate management objective based on their abundance and feasibility for control. The objectives under this category are:

• reduce the impact of unmanaged rangeland goats on areas of high biodiversity and/or cultural value

• reduce the number of goats in key refuge/source areas

• shift landholder attitudes to favour ‘managed’ goat enterprises.

While the plan focuses primarily on protecting biodiversity, it does not enforce management on pastoral lands, but rather calls on pastoralists to change attitudes towards management of goats in fenced paddocks. However, pastoralists are encouraged to collaborate not only by controlling unmanaged goat numbers on their properties to reduce grazing pressure, but also by contributing to protection of high-value environmental or cultural assets. The land manager expectations under the plan are:

• regular trapping, mustering and removal of unmanaged rangeland goats on properties managed by the land manager

• prevent the release/escape of unmanaged rangeland goats once trapped/mustered • actively participate in, or cooperate with, coordinated control programs for

unmanaged rangeland goats, using best practice techniques, in which they are targeted at protecting high-value environmental, agricultural or cultural assets • where aiming to operate a rangeland goat enterprise, running it on a managed basis

consistent with industry plans and standards (e.g., GICA, 2015; WLLS, 2018a).

These requirements highlight the need for a collaborative approach towards goat management, between conservation institutions and land managers. The second point indicates the need to stop the practice of releasing animals back in the wild that was discussed in Chapter 4. This practice can hamper efforts to control goats in highly threatened areas around pastoral lands. Collaborative management will be discussed Chapter 10.

5.2.1.2.2NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

The other institution responsible for conservation management in the Western Division is the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The OEH is responsible for managing national parks and protected reserves through the NPWS. However, it also provides advice and consults with pastoralists for protection of valuable assets on their properties (OEH, 2012, 2018a).

We’re not interested in maintaining it at a specific number across the state. What we’re more interested in is making sure that we can reduce goat numbers in the areas where they’re having really serious negative environmental impacts. So from our point of view, it’s not about the total numbers, it’s about the impacts that they have on the environment and targeting where we need to do control to those areas but also being able to do that without being criticised for actually reducing goat numbers to quite low levels, and again, we’re largely talking on our own estate but that may also potentially have some impacts on neighbouring properties where their goats are moving across our estate into their properties as well. (P25, conservationist/government)

However, the OEH does not enforce goat control on pastoral leases, which is why it employs a collaborative approach by consulting with stakeholders in the Western Division, different state and federal government representatives and the Pastoralists Association of West Darling.

Table 5.2 (from the Regional Strategic Pest Management Plan for the Western Division) details objectives of non-commercial control of goats in the region, as well as management techniques and stakeholders responsible for applying this management.

Table 5.2: Goat management strategy and stakeholders in the Western Division (WLLS, 2018a)

Objective Program

name/area

Management category

Assets (where relevant) Activities and time frame

(where relevant)

Participants

The impacts of unmanaged rangeland goats on the rangeland grazing resource base and on property biodiversity are reduced, while recognising value of goats as an economic resource

Numbers management

Asset-based protection

Grazing resource base (soil and vegetation) Property plant biodiversity, reduced biosecurity risk Mustering Trapping Land managers Department of Industry-Crown Lands & Water

Areas of high biodiversity and/or cultural value are protected from unmanaged rangeland goats

Numbers of goats in key refuge/source areas are reduced

Targeted key areas

Asset-based protection

Grazing resource base (soil and vegetation), high-value biodiversity areas in NPWS estate, Aboriginal cultural assets

Mustering, trapping Management of waters Exclusion fencing Judas goat collaring Shooting

Land managers

NPWS

Target fencing initiatives to areas in the landscape that are highly attractive to unmanaged rangeland goats and at risk from erosion or degradation

Incentive programs

Asset-based protection

Parts of the landscape over >10% gradient or Mallee soils prone to wind erosion

Exclusion fencing, mustering, trapping Land managers WLLS NPWS Funding bodies Protect high-value cropping and

grazing enterprises

Mixed

farming zones

Asset-based protection

Cropping enterprises, sown pastures

Improved fencing, mustering, trapping

Knowledge of unmanaged rangeland goat population densities and impact across the region has improved

Whole of region

Asset-based protection

Grazing resource base (soil and vegetation) High-value biodiversity areas in NPWS estate

Aboriginal cultural assets

Aerial and ground surveys Remote sensing

Investigate alternative means

of determining numbers of managed and unmanaged rangeland goats sold from each property Western Local Land Services Land managers NSW DPI OEH Department of Industry—Crown Lands & Water NPWS

MLA Knowledge of the health status of

unmanaged rangeland goat populations has improved

Whole of region

Asset-based protection

Health of all domestic livestock enterprises

Biosecurity staff work with landholders at mustering, to inspect and take specimens to determine health status Western Local Land Services Land managers NSW DPI

As most of the rangelands is under perpetual leasehold tenure arrangements, the Australian taxpayer is considered a stakeholder in the system. Urban conservationists who are not necessarily affiliated with a formal institution but who value biodiversity and prioritise conservation over the interest of producers are considered informal pest institutions. Aboriginal people who have native titles and are the first Australians and custodians of the land also have values, rules and social arrangements that dictate their position towards goats, whom they consider part of the land (Parkes et al., 1996). Rose (1995) found that Aboriginal people, who had grown up and worked there, recognised that although feral animals are introduced, they viewed them as ‘belonging to country’.